0 year olds ruling

[GorishiDan]

Its just so weird to see a literal newborn ruling anything - Shouldnt there be a minimal age for someone to be a ruler? I get the advantages of extremely young rulers, very easy to depose, vassals unhappy, its basically free for all for independence or claimant factions at that point but every time i see it it just irks me... Am i the only one? Is this even historically correct? Wouldn't that doom the entire realm?

[Rialm]

I don't know historically but of course is going to doom the entire realm.
If I'm not mistaken you can easily get claims from the pope if the ruler is a child, and is much easier to find agents willing to kill the child.

[Cola]

You used to get a custodian or whatever they called them to take over until the true ruler comes of age. But of course it's a very sticky situation and everyone in and outside the realm will try to profit from it.

[Twelvefield]

A Regent rules the realm in place of the underage (or missing) ruler. The powers of a Regent are necessarily limited because otherwise the Regent would simply crown themselves.

For whatever reason the Regent isn't modelled in the game, but you feel the effects.

[Arnolf Hüttler]

It's paradox my dude :)
They will put the Regent on a DLC

Want to try a historical accurate feature? that would be 49.99 plz

[Fredericks of Cursewood]

Originally posted by Iansmai:

It's paradox my dude :)
They will put the Regent on a DLC

Want to try a historical accurate feature? that would be 49.99 plz

I think part of the reason why it's not here is that most people didn't like it in CK2. They are trying to make CK3 more newb friendly and simply took it out.

I didn't mind it most of the time in CK2 as regencies are generally around 5 years or so, but there was that one time that my ruler went comatose for 25 years and I just had to sit there and watch the time tick away before I could actually do anything.

[Lemilys]

Henry VI, King of England, succeeded to the throne at the age of nine months old after the death of his father in battle (Henry V). This is not the only example in history of children becoming king. Of course an adult regent (usually a relative) would actually rule, until the child was old enough to rule himself. But this has a sound historical basis.

[CrUsHeR]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Years%27_War

"Charles IV died in 1328, leaving a daughter and a pregnant wife. If the unborn child was male, he would become king; if not, Charles left the choice of his successor to the nobles."

Well so much about that :)

What the game direly needs is the council position of Regent, to replace both the minimal ruler stats and the missing spouse contribution. Also there are certain interactions you cannot take as child ruler, like swaying etc.

[Twelvefield]

I don't mind that Regents are taken out. I don't miss clicking on boats, either.

The effects of Regency could be made more clear, or there could be rules/laws you could research and enact to make Regents rule more in line with the wishes of your Dynasty. However, the Regent should by necessity be just a placeholder. If they have too much initiative, you get problems down the road. Just ask Aragorn. Or the guy that had the house at the base of Minas Tirith. It's raining men! Flaming men.

[Kapika96]

Originally posted by Twelvefield:

If they have too much initiative, you get problems down the road. Just ask Aragorn. Or the guy that had the house at the base of Minas Tirith. It's raining men! Flaming men.

eh, that wasn't really a regent though. It had been like 200 years? And nobody even knew that there was anybody eligible to come back and take over. He was king in all but name.

[alegdansk]

Regents should be reintroduced in the game.
I agree that it was a bit boring to wait for the proper age to rule but the game would be more historically realistic.
They should introduce a semi-playable regent maybe.
Or players should be able to play as regents until the the young heir is 16...

[pi73r]

I agree that it was a bit boring

Those were the most exciting parts of the game since you didn't know what to expect. Can't wait for them to make ck 3 actually challenging.

[Heraclius Caesar]

As some have already mentioned, there are more than enough examples in history of infants/very young children succeeding as kings, so while it may look odd its accurate.

Originally posted by squigglyhopper:

Henry VI, King of England, succeeded to the throne at the age of nine months old after the death of his father in battle (Henry V). This is not the only example in history of children becoming king. Of course an adult regent (usually a relative) would actually rule, until the child was old enough to rule himself. But this has a sound historical basis.

Henry V did not die in battle, he died of dysentery in a royal fortress near Paris. Everything else you said is spot on

Originally posted by alegdansk:

Regents should be reintroduced in the game.
I agree that it was a bit boring to wait for the proper age to rule but the game would be more historically realistic.
They should introduce a semi-playable regent maybe.
Or players should be able to play as regents until the the young heir is 16...

If they do bring regents into the game, it should be as you say where you play the regent but also your own character still as well. Otherwise, I personally wouldn't want regents brought back as they were in ck2. I hated regents in ck2, they would steal your gold, change laws that it took you 50 years to pass because you had to get favors from your council, I think they even stole titles also, so I definitely hope they don't bring any of that back, these weren't "challenging" mechanics, just annoying and arbitrary mechanics.

[ephemeraltoast]

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Henry V did not die in battle, he died of dysentery in a royal fortress near Paris.

I mean, trying not to crap yourself to death is a *kind* of battle.

[Half-lidded Bruiser]

Originally posted by ephemeraltoast:

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Henry V did not die in battle, he died of dysentery in a royal fortress near Paris.

I mean, trying not to crap yourself to death is a *kind* of battle.

A toilet! A toilet! My kingdom for a toilet!

[Kvinden]

There should be a regency like there was in real life or in CK2.
Here you raid a town and you ask a furious child to bring you a generous loot (maybe his toys and dolls). It made me laugh the first times.
At at age 2 I don't see how they can sign a treaty. can they only read it ?
If they really add a regency they also should add an adoption system.

I reformed the religion so there is no bastard but it doesn't change anything, the children can't inherit the titles of their mother and can't be adopted by their father.